Solo

Actually, I think it is exactly the opposite. IMO, the existence of the deutero-Paulines indicates two things: 1) high esteem the evolving Catholic and Marcion's church placed on Paul's letters, considering their authority to be final, i.e. efffectively classing them as scripture, 2) "experiments" in approximating Paul in addressing the churches' burning issues of the day in the continued delays of the parousia.

As such their function was quite different than that of the gospels. The latter I see as clearly focused on creating a foundation to a continuing movement, in Matthew, Luke, and John specifically a church. The apocalyptic vision in the synoptics is a side-issue (Mark 13 actually ridicules the Zechariah signs of the coming of Messiah to "Jerusalem below"): the business of increasing the number of saved souls becomes the primary concern.

The second issue is the lag of the gospels and their representing large variances in theology. Mark does not recognize the apostolic status of the disciples and their witness of Christ's rising. Matthew's Jesus disporting himself in flesh to his companions after his death was a terrible insult to Pauline faith. The consolidation of the new faith would probably have taken number of generations, and even though Matthew finally emerged as the dominant gospel, it was never a complete victory, and the church dads wisely chose not to push for a single narrative. Paul's epistolary authority then remained for a while and was even reproduced for the newly emerging apostolic authorities of Peter, James and Jude.

Therefore, it should not be surprising the direct backward interpolation from gospels to Paul's epistles is quite rare. We see it in 1 Cor 11:23-26 which copies Luke 21:19-20, and 1 Ti 5:18 "the laborer deserves his wages" which copies a saying of Luke 10:7.
Other than that, 1 Cor 15:3-11 seems to be a Jewish-Christian reaction to Mark, evidently from the time before Matthew was written, or was widely accepted. Rom 1:2-6 is a fake, trying to argue for Davidic Messiah (1:3) of the Matt/Luke gospel collusion (the split between Mark and them being recorded in John 7:41-42) in support of a formula of Paul's apostolic authority through Jesus Christ (dia Iesou Christou), when Paul asserts in (Gal 1:15) that he received the intimations of the Son directly from God.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

You imagination has gone wild. You cannot produce any source of antiquity that support what you wrote.

You have discredited the NT and have proceeded to INVENT stories based on imagination.

Please identify a source of antiquity that support any of your claims???

Even apologetic sources claim the Pauline writer WROTE his letters AFTER Revelation by John.

When I say the Pauline writings are AFTER Revelation, after c 70 CE, it is NOT my imagination it is found in APOLOGETIC sources.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

Muratorian Canon And further, Apologetic sources implied Paul was NOT dead before c 70 CE but was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed.

I do NOT have to INVENT any stories. I use the Written statements of antiquity.

Commentary on Matthew The Pauline letters are AFTER Revelation and Paul was aware of gLuke based on Apologetic sources.

We cannot establish when the Pauline writer actually lived so authenticity cannot be assured.

outhouse

either you have the credibility or you dont


that means people that do their homeowrk and study, are the ones that get to make that call. armchair uneducated scholars opinions can be worthless

outhouse

False

there are many unbiased opinions on the subject, no one who has done the work follows the uneducated position's.

this is a matter of education on the subject.

aa5874

You may need to be educated on the subject yourself since the matter before depends on EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Any one can PRESENT evidence in order to resolve an issue.

I think a lot of uneducated people have presented EVIDENCE in court trials. Some people think the un-educated cannot provide evidence but that is the biggest mistake you will ever make in your life.

Duvduv

Gevalt, in my hometown of Tokyo I always made that same error in my native tongue of Swahili.

Duvduv

Well, Jiri. For some reason no one decided to include any story of the gospels into any interpolation into the epistles. Nothing about the nativity, the Baptist, Bethlehem, Gologotha, Calvary, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. etc. etc. By the time all of these were finalized no one must have believed that they could tamper with any writings such as the epistles. I mean, there must have been a cut off point where tampering became "haram" (forbidden).

aa5874

Well, they did NOT tamper with the Epistles of Peter, James, Jude, John, Hebrews and Revelation by John.

The Pauline writings are about the Resurrected Jesus and that Paul met the resurrected Jesus and received his his gospel from him.
Paul PRIMARY concern is that Jesus was RAISED from the dead and that he was visited by the resurrected Jesus.

Miracle workers may have been a Dime a Dozen but NOT a resurrected being.

Romans 10:9 KJV I find it quite illogical that a gospel based on the resurrection is expected to predate a gospel based on the crucifixion and when the Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be visited by the RESURRECTED Jesus after over 500 people.

The Pauline gospel of Salvation by the Resurrection is the Last Gospel in the Canon.

The Gospel, gJohn, promoted Salvation ONLY by the crucifixion but the Pauline writer went beyond gJohn and included the resurrection.

Sheshbazzar

If you think Revelation by John was not tampered with.....

Well,... I've got this really great bridge that I'm willing to give you a terrific deal on!
And some beautiful Florida property I need to sell too.

DCHindley

Yeah,

I used to do asset searches, in which I looked up residential lots in the Brevard County platt books - roads clearly mapped out, etc - somewhere around Micco on (then) US-1 (Dixie Hwy) - that were clearly nothing more than swamp when you drove by there - not even a dirt road.

However, I bet they are for sale now ... cheap!

DCH